The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

AlanM1[edit]

Final (47/33/14); ended 18:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) - Unsuccessful Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

AlanM1 (talk · contribs) – Alan's been here since 2008 with no blocks or (as far as I can tell) no substantial user conduct/behavioral issues in the past; per WP:DEAL, that alone should qualify him for administrative tools. If he were going to break things, he would have done it before now; we shouldn't hesitate to trust Alan. The guy's participated in activities that require admin tools; although it clearly wasn't the first time, my first memory of interacting with him involved a set of pages that needed to be deleted — last September, Alan was filling CAT:CSD with numerous ((db-move)) requests because a large number of pages, such as Hamirpur district, were at the wrong titles and couldn't simply be moved over redirects. Aside from occasional obvious errors, he clearly was filing correct requests, demonstrating familiarity with numerous relevant policies and standards. Together with his six-year pattern of editing, it looks clear that he's ready for the tools. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and would like to thank Nyttend for his suggestion. If accepted, I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend Wikipedia. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that I'm identified to the WMF (verify; one of only 845 WMF project users globally) and I have worked in WP:ACC with security-sensitive issues. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have run into the need for an admin in a number of areas in which I've worked, including page moves, editing of fully-protected templates, and user-related problems. I tend to be available at times that are rather thin (like U.S. overnight), and come upon vandalism and other violations, which would benefit from immediate admin action (i.e. blocks, revdel). It would be good to be able to take care of these things myself, instead of having to waste someone else's time. That is not to say that I'll "shoot first and ask questions later" – I try to remain aware of my level of knowledge and have no problem deferring to others or asking for help when I'm not sure of the correct course of action. I don't have plans to get involved in user drama unless required, at least not in anything that isn't an obvious decision.

By way of example, in the U.S. early morning on July 24, in a typical couple hours patrolling the user creation log, I found a vandal in progress[1], warned[2][3] and cleaned up[4][5][6][7] after them (another user ec'd with me at AIV[8]). A bit less damage would have been done, and the time of two other users not wasted, if I had been able to pull the trigger myself after the second swastika.

Next, I found, cleaned[9], and warned[10] another destructive editor, and another[11][12]. Next up was a promotional username reported to UAA[13]. Then, there was another destructive editor[14][15].

I then worked with an admin on a problem user from a couple days ago at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#CIR_problem.

Finally, there was another vandal[16][17] and a destructive editor[18][19].

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my strength is my attention to detail, which allows me to spot things that others miss. I've done a lot of work on grammar and flow in poorly-written articles, but have also found issues in Good and Featured Articles. As a programmer, I've also enjoyed working on templates and would like to do more in that realm, especially with the power that Lua has added.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't know if I'd call it stress – after all, it's not Real Life. My occasional beefs have been relatively minor and I try to take care to prevent escalation, as the situation dictates. If all else fails, I can walk away from a particular issue and not lose sleep over it. I add it to my "ToDo" list and may come back to it later when everyone's had a chance to think about things and we may be able to reach a solution; or I can just let it be, depending on how important I think it is to the wiki. I also have a sense of humor, and a cat, both of which can dissipate a fair amount of stress.
Additional optional questions from Mkdw
4. Do you actively participate in mop 'n bucket areas that do not require the use of the sysop tools (i.e. Recent changes, RFC, AFC, etc.)?
A: I joined the Account Creation Team in response to a plea for new members to help clear a backlog. I'm not currently active there, so I don't know what records are available, but perhaps one of their admins can share some stats.
I've also worked around the edges of admin (what's available without tools), including answering questions at the WP:HELPDESK, and participation in WP:ANI where possible.
A look at my contribs to User Talk (mostly of IPs) will show a lot of the anti-vandalism work.
Here's an example of a more involved IP vandalism issue that I helped with.
While I don't come across too many currently active vandals (they are mostly drive-by or longer-term problems), I count 16 reports to AIV in the last 23 months in my contribs to Wikipedia namespace.
5. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, are you willing to disclose those accounts?
A: No, I have not.
Additional question by Dennis Brown
6. AFD performance is one of the most important metrics to me, but your experience is almost non-existent. Are there other experiences or words that would reassure those of us that consider AFD experience critical?
A: I generally believe deletion of an article to be the most extreme solution. I am familiar with, and have used, the criteria for speedy deletion, applying to the "obvious" cases (i.e. those that I would expect to WP:SNOW 90/10 or more if questioned). Speedies aside, other than for notability, or because it belongs as part of another article, I'd rarely want to delete an article, choosing rather to improve it (or have it improved).
I'll also note that I generally try to comment on my reasoning instead of just !voting, so looking at what I've written in the few I've done may reveal more than cold stats. Also, here are two examples that are not in the report:
Additional question from BrownHairedGirl
7. In your answer to question 2, you explained that you would like to do more template editing. Please can you explain why you have not already applied for the Wikipedia:Template editor user right to allow you to do that.
A: No? I just hadn't gotten around to it, really.
Additional question by MusikAnimal
8. Could you elaborate on Q1? Specifically, what are the "user-related problems" you are referring to? Do you plan to handle any of the WP:ACSD requests?
A: I'd rather not get involved in user squabbles related to behavior, other than obvious, bright-line issues like threats and such. Having been on the user side of ACSD, it seems like something I can do well, so I would.

@MusikAnimal: Please see new addition to A1, above. This is the type of stuff I prefer to participate in.

9. Could you provide some examples of what you consider your best work? Are there any articles you are particularly proud of? What about templates?
A: This may take a while to assemble. While some might not think 8,000 edits is a lot, perhaps my memory is failing, but I don't remember the details of edits just a few hundred ago.
Additional question from Lord Roem
10. You mention one of the administrative areas you're interested in helping out in are user-conduct issues ("user-related problems"). With that in mind, here's a scenario to look at: You've come across an edit war on the Abortion article. The edit war is long and drawn out over the course of an entire day. Editor A made a bold edit of contentious material with a weak source. Editor B has reverted the material three times while Editor A has reverted the material back in twice (both used rollback and neither are sysops). No talk page discussion has occurred, and no personal attacks in edit summaries. However, Editor A has said "read the source" in the edit summary and Editor B has said "Source not valid" in theirs. Both editors are registered users in good standing with at least a year of project experience. How do you handle the situation?
A: To begin with, this is exactly the type of work I don't want to get into. On the face of it, it seems a content dispute is the type of thing that is usually kicked from ANI back to WP:3O or for the users to RfC and get some different views. Editor B may deserve a 3RR warning or minor sanction. If you want, I can study it further. I'm apparently wrong. No surprise (bolded primary thought).
Additional question from Lord Roem
11. There's been some discussion of your understanding of AfD. I want to give you a chance to show your thought process when approaching this area, even if you only intend to spend limited time here. I went to the AfD page and randomly picked a still-open discussion (see here); additionally, this is an AfD that went to deletion review, again something I randomly picked (see here). For both of these, explain how you would !vote, and for the still-open AfD, how you would go about determining consensus and closing it.
A: Again, I do not intend to work on something with which I'm not familiar. That means I wouldn't touch either unless, as an editor involved in the article, I was familiar with the particular issue enough to know what the correct course is. If you want me to cram through the guidelines to learn what to do, I can do that, but I'd really rather work on other things.
I'm trying to gauge how you think. No matter what admin work you do, there will be a time and place where you're going to make a judgement call on something. Even if it's just your initial reaction, I'd be grateful if you could at least look at the first of the two AfDs and give me your sense of the discussion. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your trap in Q10 (Mkativerata let the cat out of the bag below; congrats – well-played) is exactly why I can't answer, especially not about a (random?) article about gun politics! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I make judgement calls every day in my work here, patrolling for vandals, deciding on warning severity and type, deciding whether a fact should be present or needs citing, looking at sources and deciding on reliability, proposing CSDs, deciding whether a move is controversial or not, contributions to various guideline discussions (e.g. MOS), etc. My edit history is open for viewing.

Also, I worked at ACC/ACT for a while, making dozens of judgement calls regarding potential new user accounts, including deferring some to others with different skills. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from 49.136.47.116
12. What do you think about adminship recall??
A: Quoting myself from a talk page earlier: The fact that it's hard to remove an admin is clearly the problem. I've never hired someone under those conditions in real life – I don't know why Wikipedia should be any different. Clearly, an initial probationary period (say, 90 days), during which an expedited recall process is in place, makes sense. Longer-term, I don't know what the process is, but to me, if someone routinely screws up and doesn't want to fix or stop it, it makes sense to de-admin them.
Additional question from 101.221.129.128
13. Write a convincing oppose position and then do a rebuttal for your candidacy.
A:
Additional question from K6ka
14. I've asked this question numerous times at RFA (just to see if they can get past the tangled mess of string and yarn and mashed-up computers) - do you know the difference between a block and a ban?
A:
Additional question from PaleAqua
15. It seems that a number of concerns about how you would handle deletions. Would you agree to seek out mentoring on afd and speedy deletions before doing anything in those areas?
A:Certainly, and I believe everything I've said is consistent with that. I've no intention of playing "fast and loose" with tools and processes with which I'm not familiar. If it were possible to divorce the delete rights from the rest, I'd have no problem doing without them, as it is not my area of concern. My reason for wanting adminship is to improve the efficiency with which I can do the types of things I'm already doing, like being able to block users for vandalism, etc.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

The guy's been here for seven years (not six, as I said), and quite active over the last three. Are you really saying that three years isn't enough for being an administrator? This is far more than necessary to demonstrate (footnote at end) that he won't abuse the administrative tools. I passed RFA in late 2007 (something like 1¼ years after registering), and when Jimbo began making people administrators, nobody had been around for more than 2 years and 1 month: had anyone demanded what's here being demanded of Alan, we wouldn't have had any administrators until 2004 at earliest, and most of us current administrators would have failed miserably. Footnote: of course I know that the only comprehensive way to demonstrate future-non-abuse of tools is proper usage, but that can't be shown without tools. Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I am saying is that your statement implies a more active early participation than has been the case. Each person will assess the candidate based on the evidence presented; and each person will have their own views on what is sufficient involvement in time and edits for a candidate to have accumulated the level of trust, knowledge and judgement to be voted in as an admin - my views may differ from yours or anyone else's - it's a personal judgement call which will vary from voter to voter, but what shouldn't vary is the evidence or facts on which to base that judgement. A nomination statement which says: "Alan's been here since 2008 making occasional edits, and since 2012 has become more active, editing almost daily and helping out in various areas, including the Help desk...." is more helpful to the candidate because it presents the full facts, which are actually quite positive when presented that way, and prevents people being surprised when they go to his contributions. What I am saying is there is a dissonance between your statement and what people are seeing, and that could be prompting more opposes than would be the case if the nomination statement was worded differently. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even Pedro noted my extended wikibreak at my RFA, and I've always noted the same for candidates that I've nom'ed, so I agree, it is for the benefit of the candidate as much as the community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I'm not a registered user so I'm not going to !vote. Looking at Alan's contributions it seems to me that he is a good guy and can make a good admin but as other experienced editors said; Afd is the reflection of an editor on how s/he understands those policies. I hope to see you with the tools after gaining some more experience in a year or so. 49.136.239.186 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Meets my standards for tenure, edit count and what not. Excellent main space / project space balance. In addition this [20]impressive handling of a difficult user, and your quality answer to Q3, all assure me. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Edit count fine. Q1 shows tech. 20 AIV is enough for vandal. I like to see more content in Q2 and Q3 (evidence/links!). (Part of Q3 raises an eyebrow.) Glrx (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Glrx: I clarified A3. Hopefully that was your concern? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's OK to be in a dispute and decide to walk away from it. It's also OK to have a todo list of articles that need to be fixed or expanded. I'm leery of the notion of "walking away" that includes a note to come back later — is that really walking away? The practice can be benign, but I know some now-banned editors who employed the tactic. (Re clarification.) Glrx (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to be clear that it's not an "I'll be back" (a la Schwarzenegger) list – the purpose of walking away is to give both sides time to reflect. I may or may not come back, depending on how it looks with "fresh eyes". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Based on the nominators recommendation, and the lack of any serious issues that I've seen. I prefer candidates with more experience in quasi-adminstrative areas, but will just urge AlanM1 to exercise caution (or even better, participate as a normal editor for awhile first) before using the admin tools in areas they are not already familiar with. Monty845 20:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that right up front, in A1, I tried to make it clear that this is exactly how I work. The wonderful thing about WP is that there is always expert help available – there's really no need to just "wing it". If anything, this process has made me even more aware of that than I already was. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom :-) Bbb23 tells me "You're supposed to do more than just nominate, Nyttend - it's usual to also support". Is this what's expected? Just asking for !votes from my peeps since Alan didn't do his selfie RFA, yo. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — Whilst more involvement within anti-vandalism areas such as AIV would have been great per the candidate's own admission that they encounter vandalism in the hours they're online – I see no major underlying problems with their editing and judgment (albeit a few minor errors, which they are quick to fix), and I'm satisfied with their answers to the questions, thus far. Alan, I wish you all the best! —MelbourneStar☆talk 23:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Suitable temperament (very important, IMO), clean block log and a use for the mop. The candidate seems to understand the learning curve for adminship, and should do a good job. Miniapolis 01:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Has clearly shown a need for the tools, and is unlikely to break anything. I'm not concerned about the rather low number of edits (after all, quality >>> quantity), and the user does not say he wants to work in AfD, so the low participation in AfD does not bother me either. As Pedro mentions, that pie chart is just about ideal also, IMO. Candidate seems intelligent. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC) moved to oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I've taken a look at the candidate's template edits, and he easily passes the template-editor granting guidelines, so I can't see any reason to oppose based on him not having applied for the template-editor right before. Adminship also permits editing of some templates and other technical pages that the template-editor right does not, such as cascade-protected templates and MediaWiki messages, so there is good reason not to limit competent editors to the non-admin user rights. Temperament and tenure look good to me, and I'm not concerned about AfD participation seeing as the candidate hasn't said he wishes to work in that area. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Seen AlanM1 a few times around wikipedia and seen nothing that makes me think they would be a bad admin. PaleAqua (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I am convinced that this editor is sufficiently tenured for adminship. You don't need to have 10,000+ edits to be considered experienced, and I'd put quality over quantity anyday. Kurtis (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Nice answers. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Overall, I am fine with AlanM1 becoming an admin. Jianhui67 T★C 09:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support because I can't see any reason not to. Deb (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 15:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support The nomination and support votes are very convincing. A net positive considering the clean block log and generally good temperament. Minima© (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom, Mr. Stradivarius, and answers/discussion by candidate. Yup, AfD work is weak, but I see no indication that is an area he is pining to work in, or that he would wield the mop in any way other than measured. His ability to work with templates makes this adminship a NETPOSITIVE. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. 2 years is more than enough experience and I see no reason to think the candidate will abuse the tools. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Great editor, worked along side at ACC and has been around template ares of late. Remember not all content editors make good Admins. Good luck, Mlpearc (open channel) 00:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support – Has enough experience, and I really have no idea why his lack of AfD participation is so concerning. Where does he say he wants to work at AfD? Of all admin areas, why is everyone so concerned about a lack of participation in AfD over anything else? TCN7JM 02:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I don't think AfD experience is that important if it isn't one of the main areas he is interested in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support- active vandal fighter who would make good use of the tools. Unconvinced about the experience based opposes; I think the candidate has plenty of experience. PhilKnight (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. AlanM1 should stay away from deletion—he lacks appropriate experience. However he has sufficient contributions in other areas to make use of the other tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - positive temperament and attitude. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. The nomination statement is a bit of a farce, but the candidate himself is more than qualified. As an aside, I hope some of the comments in the oppose section are just attempts at humor; "only been active two years" and "only 8,000 edits" are some of the more outrageous objections I've ever read in an RfA. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we oppose just to be funny. I have seen these types of arguments used in dozens of previous RfA's. Ones that have succeeded and some that haven't. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume it's Julian's first time voting in an RFA ... If it wasn't he'd know that opposing per "only been active two years" and "only 8,000 edits" are quite common here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really the best you can do? Your 53 RfA votes pale in comparison to my 620, and with that established I think most of my peers will agree two years is more than enough time to become a sysop. "Only been here three weeks and has under 300 edits" is a valid objection, perhaps even eight months/3,000 edits. Two years? Gadzooks. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You've missed the point ... I wasn't personally objecting to "2 years isn't enough", I was objecting to his inactivity .... Someone could be an admin in a year for all I care - Just providing they know what they're doing, Striked the above as unhelpful –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think what I'm trying to say is that if the candidate is unqualified to be an admin, it's not because he's only been active for two years, or only made 8,000 edits. Such unconventionally high thresholds begins to detract from what are otherwise valid concerns, even if they're not meant to be the crux of the objection. I'd just hate to see a masterful contributor with "only" 7,500 edits discouraged from applying for adminship after reading archived RfAs. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Rzuwig► 18:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Length and competence of service is a better indicator of future administrative performance than edit counts (whether edits generally or edits in particular areas). Because of those two indicators, I have little doubt that if AlanM1 ever did want to perform AfD closes, he'd do it conscientiously, gaining experience first and acting with care. Some of the answers to questions of course aren't great -- Question 10 for instance ignores the 1RR sanctions that apply to the Abortion article -- but really, not every admin who happens to 'come across' the edit war needs to know that. In reality, the situation in Question 10 would get reported to AE and dealt with immediately there. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I see people saying opposing based on what areas this guy hasn't taken part in. What about the areas he does take part in? He doesn't have to take part in everything as an administrator. 6+ years, clean block log, several thousand edits and a willingness to take part. Sounds perfectly good to me. ~Frosty (Talk page) 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support He has been here since 2008, has a clean block log, and I see barely any issues here. I think he'll make a good admin. StevenD99 02:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support The nomination of a recent successful candidate described an editor who asked me for an admin review in November of 2012, 18 months ago. What impresses me is that instead of being eager and asking again in 6 or 9 months, he listened and followed the advice given, waited until he was confident he was ready, all while working diligently on learning the ropes in policy and in editing. While this level of preparation may be an outlier, this appears where community expectations are heading. I have no doubt that if AlanM1 puts himself through six months of similar preparation, a similar successful result will follow. He already has the intangibles: he's levelheaded, civil, and doesn't break things (and for this editor, that's enough to warrant my support). Helping out in XfD and a GA will allow those intangibles to shine. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not strike me as the decision of a levelheaded candidate with an interest in acting on peer feedback. But maybe that's just me. Townlake (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, don't see anythng wrong. Go for it. RWCasinoKid (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. The user will not abuse the tools; as the nominator said, the user automatically qualifies per WP:DEAL. The opposes per AfD experience are silly because the user promised not to work in AfD, and is trustworthy in every way. UPDATE: the user explained his perspective on deletion more clearly, so now I feel comfortable !voting for him. Also, the more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems to not support the user just because he isn't interested in a very specific area (though perhaps important) of adminship. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Retracted, 03:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Updated 21:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully believe you are misreading DEAL. There is nothing in there that implies automatic qualification. While I enthusiastically agree with your assessment of the nominee's character and really hope that he comes back in six months or so after doing a little work in adminny areas, I think it is unwise to hand over powerful tools to someone with such a limited track record in the areas where Admins are normally expected to have some competency. As others have noted, there are very few mistakes on Wikipedia that cannot be corrected with a few clicks on a mouse. But granting admin rights is one bell that cannot be easily unrung. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; I misread DEAL. Also, I'm becoming more concerned about the user's current attitude towards deletion, so I'm retracting my !vote. I do hope though, that he comes back in a few months after doing more work in afd. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 03:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Bobherry talk 00:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Wikipedia is improved by edits of many different types (e.g. content creation, vandal-fighting, copyediting/wikignoming, xFD, GA reviews, policy discussions, teahouse, templates) and it is natural that many editors specialise in particular areas (especially once they become familiar with the policies and tools relevant in an area). Many of the oppose !votes say things like "Doesn't have enough pieces outstanding work to showcase, his content contribution" (how is that relevant to being an admin?) or ""Being familiar with the nuance of our deletion policies ... is a vital skill for an administrator". IMO, an admin needs to be a "careful and conscientious editor with a steady temperament and good communication skills" (quoting from an oppose !vote) and, most importantly, someone we trust (based on how much GF editing they've done) not to run amok and not to use admin powers without understanding of the relevant policies. Expecting a potential admin to already be knowledgeable about every area in which admin powers can be used e.g. WP:RFPERM (as well as experience in most areas of non-admin editing) is unnecessarily restrictive. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Looks okay to me. I can trust him with the mop. --Pratyya (Hello!) 12:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Looking over his contributions I see no reason he would not wield the tools well. As an aside, needing to see an exceptional amount of experience in an area where they do not particularly wish in spending their time is not particularly fair to the candidate. Some don't want to work AFD, some contribute heavily on content and don't care for the being a regular at ANI and use the tools mostly for maintenance. What matters is he has 2 years+ and experience in the areas he wishes to start mopping, a valid demonstration that he understands the policies, and a collaborative demeanor. I trust him to use the buttons wisely. Calmer Waters 22:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I see alot of good edits and a long time of service. I see good will. I have no reason to assume he wil misuse any bits. He has experience in his own fields and has not got into trouble in other fields. I see no reason why I shouldn't trust him. -- Taketa (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I am always in support of giving a long-term user admin rights when his/her behavior has been constructive and he/she indicates a desire to do more for the project. The whole "inexperience" argument put forth by those in opposition doesn't hold water for me. Even though Alan answered Q12, it bothers me that the person submitting the question couldn't even bother to log in before asking it. If I were Alan, I'd not even bother with Q13, partly because of the IP asking and secondly because it's somewhat absurd to ask someone to write an opposition position on their own nomination. Regarding Q12, I also particularly like Alan's position on revocation of admin privileges through a trial period. I also advocate such revocation for anyone who does not fulfill their admin responsibilities (regardless of their tenure), but I'll leave that to another discussion. Vertium When all is said and done 23:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support for a solid record of reasonable behavior —as far as I can determine after reading though his talk archives. Demonstrated experience would be nice, but my personal view is that as long as a user understands consensus and Wikipedia social dynamics in their bones, as it seems User:AlanM1 does, they are good to go. Just consult the instructions as you go along. Antrocent (♫♬) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support my impression is that the candidate would most likely be a net positive. Opposers make some points but I think he'd be cautious enough to watch and learn as he goes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - experienced enough. Yes, I'd like to see more work on AfD, which is one of the most important tasks for admins. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support The first criterion I look at is experience. An important component of experience is time active, which, as I see it, should be over a year. There are clearly strengths and weaknesses in experience with this candidate, but there is not enough inexperience for me to oppose. The second criterion is behavior. Will the candidate possibly harm Wikipedia as an administrator. I don't see it with this candidate. The candidate doesn't have much experience at AFD, but the candidate does not plan to work in this area. The candidate has expressed an inclusionist perspective on AFD, perhaps more than most inclusionists. However, as I see it, inclusionists are not likely to break AFD especially if they do not plan to work in that area. Thus, I see this candidate as a net positive to the project. I am One of Many (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. The candidate's years on the project, number of edits (very few of which are automated), and answers here, justify our support. Kablammo (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Cancelling out some of the ridiculous oppose votes. Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, good grief, is 8000 edits not enough for some people any more? Completely absurd. No evidence that user will misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  45. Support, candidates conduct throughout this somewhat difficult RfA assures me they will not "melt-down" at the first taste of admin adversity. He is clearly trustworthy and seems motivated by the best interests of the project. His editing contributions practically guarantee his adminship would, at minimum, be a net-positive gain.—John Cline (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. More than sufficient experience as pointed out by the opposers. No reason to believe tools will be misused. —Kusma (t·c) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Alan demonstrates both technical proficiency and personal tact in his day-to-day editing; WP can only be improved by granting him the extra tools to continue with. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Less than ten edits in AfD unless I bungled my search. That is a very important area from my perspective since it gives us an idea of how a future Admin approaches article retention and deletion, as well as their grasp of guidelines and policies. This is not an irreparable problem though. Spend some time in AfD and come back in six months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully not badgering, but your oppose seems to be based on an absence of evidence they'll do well, as opposed to actual evidence they'll do badly? Also the candidate states in Q1 they intend to use the bits for "page moves, editing of fully-protected templates, and user-related problems" none of which are relevant (or only tangentially so) to deletion. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not badgering at all. I appreciate your comment and for the record, you are mostly correct. When casting a !vote for a future admin I do indeed require evidence that they will do well since if we make a mistake, it's extremely difficult to unring this particular bell. While I appreciate the candidate's stated intentions with respect to where he will be mostly working, the tool box still comes with the 'delete article button.' He may, or may not ever use it. Once it's been given to him though we can't go back and say, "you said you wouldn't use that tool." So yeah, if he has it, I want to be as sure as I reasonably can be that should he choose to use it, he will do so judiciously. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Pedro, I don't think describing an oppose rationale citing inexperience is necessarily done justice by calling it an oppose "based on an absence of evidence they'll do well". Experience is something earned and a widely accepted standard in many assessment processes. An editor with only one edit may then meet your criteria of no "evidence they'll do badly". That and experience are not mutually exclusive of each other. My counter argument to the oppose would be to point out that there are ways AlanM1 can show an understanding of policies as well as competence in applying them outside of AfD. Mkdwtalk 21:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment and the subthread that developed from it has been moved to the talk page at the request of Pedro. --Stfg (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to see evidence that they will do well. Any new user can show a lack of evidence that they will not do well. I disagree with the premise of the nomination, a user can be a great editor since day 1 of Wikipedia, that does not mean they will be a good admin. Chillum 21:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply Ad Orientem; it's a perfectly fair reason to oppose (albeit that I disagree with it!) and I appreciate your expanded reasoning. Chillum - that's a bit of an unfair (if not slightly odd) reading of my comments. I'm not advocating we hand the tools to editors with three edits on the basis they "haven't screwed up so far". This is a tenured candidate with thousands of edits - deletion may just not interest them. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I modified my comment when I realized my wording was ambigious. My original point was that absense of poor behavior as an editor is not evidence of good admin behavior, I guess I made it poorly. Chillum 21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Candidate is much too inexperienced. Total of 7,999 edits when I checked a minute ago. He has exhibited a Veteran Editor badge (requirement 8,000 edits) since February 24, 2014, when he had (checking his contributions) only about 7,000. Kraxler (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: @Kraxler: Actually, he had 6500 edits on the ENwiki and 2800 on Commons (according to that edit), so that's more than enough. I don't really see why that would be an issue. Remember that a user's number of edits doesn't show their level of experience. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that my edits are all manual (or slightly assisted with Twinkle, etc.), and that I tend toward grouping many changes together into a single edit instead of many individual saves. A lot of it is time-intensive copy editing, finding and checking cites, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to Q6 is not good. It shows that the candidate has no experience in this area, and that the candidate is unwilling to research before answering. Besides, in March (4 months ago) he voted "Oppose" in an AfD (Lighting designer), although that is not an option according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute. In the other discussion (Anshei Sfard) stated a personal opinion, without citing a guideline, and not answering the concerns of the nominator, see also WP:NOTVOTE. Later also added "if there isn't a guideline that makes this clear, there should be" meaning that if the guideline doesn't support one's statement the guideline should be fixed so to fit one's opinion. Well, I think people should argue according to the guidelines, not demand guidelines according to their opinions. Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Re A6, I never claimed experience in AfD, and am unaware that it's a hard requirement, or I'd have likely declined the nom. I did take the time to find two more votes that didn't get included, and asked to fix a third one where the closer used a syntax the report didn't understand. Assuming Dennis didn't want me to just invent experience I didn't have, I talked about what I did know, and my understanding of the concepts involved, which is about all I can do.
    As far as the syntax for voting, I don't see any clearly-defined list of options at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, something that's always disturbed me. I assumed it was a free-form thing for this reason, and used a word that I (and others) routinely use in this type of thing. Perhaps that's the programmer in me, but I don't think it's unreasonable. Picking on syntax, when it's poorly (or not at all) defined, though ...? As far as a solution, it seems like a template, with an error thrown if not one of the defined choices, would solve the issue. I often see people vote using words that are unusual. Even an experienced closer did so, as mentioned above.
    Re Anshei Sfard, point taken – mea culpa. I was being lazy and didn't want to look up the relevant policy, making what amounts to the "common sense" argument instead. I try not to do this.
    I caught up to date by reading the diffs, and saw your original post regarding the service award. I'm glad you retracted it. For the record, my count is global, including deletes, based on WP:Service awards § What is counted.3F I smalled this because these things are, by definition, just wall decoration, and not meant to imply anything at all – just a little levity to make the experience more interesting. If I thought it would routinely lead to misunderstandings such as this, I certainly wouldn't bother with it.
    —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "As far as the syntax for voting, I don't see any clearly-defined list of options at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute" - It says "Usually editors recommend a course of action (my bolding) in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" or other view." That is IMO clear enough, either you vote by choosing any one of the bolded examples given (most used are "keep" and "delete") or you recommend any other action that could be taken concerning the article. I don't think that one can "oppose" or "support" an article, or the nominator, because, at AfD, voters are required to debate or state rationales to keep or delete, under the guidelines. It is also possible just to post a "comment" when you are in doubt about whether to keep or delete, and ask other users to clarify statements or consider additional guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree. The quote line can not be read as a finite list of terms to be used – they are in a list of examples that ends with "or other view". I don't think there is a finite list. If there were, the rules would/should be written differently (e.g. a bullet list with meanings), there would/should be an editnotice telling you what to do or, better, a template to use, etc. This would all be pretty standard elsewhere in WP, and so it's not an unreasonable conclusion that there is no finite list.

    Assuming random editors, and not just a group of "regulars", are supposed to be able to vote on RfDs, I believe we need to clarify this issue in the docs and with a template.

    As far as the meaning of "Oppose", the title is "Articles for Deletion" – "oppose" pretty clearly means opposing deletion. I used it because it's commonly used in other vote (and vote-like) situations (e.g. RfCs). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was looking for either a list of CSDs or PRODs, or a short explanation about your perspective on "deletions" in general. Something to give me a feel for how familiar you were with our deletion policy. As is often the case, there is no right or wrong answer to my question, it was simply an opportunity. AFD experience isn't required, but you don't have CSD and PROD logging enabled in Twinkle, so there really is nothing for us to judge your familiarity with deletions. Deletions are so core to what we do, I think every admin should at least have a good general understanding of what should and shouldn't be deleted. Even if you think you won't work there, you will be dealing with some decisions like this. The "delete" button can be just as damaging as the "block" button if used improperly, as deletions sometimes go unnoticed. Both can anger editors and cost us content. I don't expect expertise, just clue and a good general understanding of our deletion policies. Unfortunately, I can't tell if you have that or not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Alan - I quote myself from up there "...either you vote by choosing any one of the bolded examples given (most used are "keep" and "delete") or you recommend any other action that could be taken concerning the article." That doesn't imply any "finite list of options", quite the contrary. But "oppose" and "support" are not among the options because you could mean oppose deletion or oppose keeping; or support deletion or support keeping; i.e. these words are not clearly describing any course of action in reference to the article. Your last post up there shows a serious misunderstanding of my previous post, and leads me to believe that in a discussion you would defend your own point of view stubbornly, disregarding the guidelines, so that you wouldn't have to admit a mistake. That's not what I expect anybody to do here around, much less an admin, because it usually increases the drama rate exponentially. Kraxler (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kraxler: I would argue that any person with common sense would realize that oppose in the context of an AfD discussion would mean that the person is in opposition to the deletion. AfD is only for deletions (obviously) so it's not like someone could think it's an opposition to keeping the article. While it was a mistake that definitely shows lack of AfD experience, it's not something to bash him over the head with. Take this AfD for an example: there is a 7-year veteran editor (who is also a Commons admin) who stated oppose as their !vote. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Mr. Scorch - Admins should have good communication skills, they should not expect that "any person with common sense would realize that [something] would mean that", but they should clearly say what they mean. Besides, they are not expected to be infallible (only the Pope is), but when they make mistake, they are expected to admit them, and correct them if necessary. Even you agree that "it was a mistake". That somebody else (for example another non-enWiki-admin) makes a mistake is no excuse for having made the same mistake too. Caution: Metaphor follows It's like crossing a red light and when stopped by the police, saying "Look at that old guy overthere, he must be driving a car for at least 40 years, and he crossed the red light too."Metaphor ends here. Kraxler (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kraxler: I was merely trying to show that, in my opinion, that in itself isn't a reason to oppose an RfA, while his inexperience in AfD is (hence why I still lay in the Neutral list). In my time helping around AfD I have seen others make that mistake (including the admin who I linked to) and definitely agree with you it was a mistake, albeit a minor one. Like I already said, the overall issue isn't that he made a mistake on how he listed his !vote, but it's that very same !vote that shows his inexperience; inexperience is the problem.
    Since you brought up the "even if someone else made the same mistake, it's still a mistake" argument, see the userbox (here) that I have listed on my userpage. I definitely agree with you. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems like a nice guy, (Candidate has demonstrated a worrisome stubbornness throughout this RFA, ironic given the nom was based on an incorrect interpretation of WP:DEAL) but doesn't have enough experience where it matters to instill trust. The nominator playing the "no big deal" card so early in the nom statement does the candidate no favors. Townlake (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought this up because it's only the most relevant section of the most relevant policy. I do hope our closing bureaucrat ignores this vote, since we routinely ignore votes that challenge policies instead of implementing them. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, an opinion that the candidate is inexperienced isn't necessarily a contradiction of the No Big Deal policy. Andrevan@ 06:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm indeed! The WP:DEAL policy does not say that giving the tools is no big deal. What it says is: Stated simply, while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct should be considered important, merely "being an administrator" should not be. (my italics) The nomination statement, like most mentions of WP:DEAL, seem to be calling for a casual approach to RfA !voting, which is not what the policy says or implies at all. The policy is saying that sysop status implies no great "authority". --Stfg (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend, please quote where I challenged a policy. If you can't, you owe me an apology. Townlake (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Unless I completely muffed my checks this user hasn't created that many articles for his length of time on Wikipedia. Although it first appeared as he had, it turns out most are just redirects. I would like to see him more involved in the creating of articles. If I am wrong please tell me. -- NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 07:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Creation of articles is not something I'm interested in doing, or even necessarily good at. I'm better at editing/polishing/categorizing existing work. IMO, that's what makes WP appealing – people are free to choose their work, something we often don't get to do in our real jobs and lives. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The candidate's presentation does not provide any evidence that he is qualified to conduct administrator duties. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Not enough AfD participation. AfD is an important part especially in deleting articles. He has only been active for about 2 years and just because he joined in 2008 and doesn't have any blocks doesn't mean he is ready for the mop. Just by that standard I could be a admin. JayJayWhat did I do? 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @JayJay: Why don't you run? We could do with some more admins. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as unexperienced - Not enough AFD participation & Only been active for 2 years despite registering 6 years ago (I have no problems with inactivity but IMHO it just seems too long), All's I suggest is contribute more in AFDs and perhaps retry in 6-8 months a years time, Good luck in future RFA's tho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't understand this statement. I was actually inactive on WP for over 40 years. Why does it matter when I registered? I've been "active" for about 2.5 years, making over 8000 enwiki edits manually. There are voters on this page with less experience.

    If AfD is a requirement for adminship, then that should be made clear, and it would save everyone a lot of time. It seems at odds, though, with the appeal for more admins to help with backlog, to focus on lack of experience in one area instead of experience in many other areas. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If you read Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship it does mention that AfD is seen as an important area among others. Chillum 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's not an accurate characterization. It's 37 bytes in a 36 KB page, a few words in a parenthetical list in one ("Varied experience") of 9 bullet-point areas that are "often looked for". Compare that with the weight it's being given here. The same process would never fly in article space. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to fly anything, and this is not article space. Read past failed RfAs and see that these things are indeed often looked for. Chillum 04:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to be a smartass!, Your "inactivity" plays a part in this RFA and in everyone elses, As for the AFD's - Absolutely agree with everyone above - Having experience in AFD is essential ... You need to contribute in pretty much everything here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose- Doesn't have enough pieces outstanding work to showcase, his content contribution/writing is lacking. His best contribution is grammar work, I'd like to see him write a fairly high-quality article. Also lack of participation in AfD matters as everyone has already mentioned, but more importantly, an apparent distaste for the idea of deleting articles is not good for an admin, who has so much power over deletion matters. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose The breadth of his demonstrated competencies don't match the scope of the tools he's requesting. I would like to see more content creation and more time putting forth sound arguments in AfD. I'm also unimpressed with his characterization in Q6 of article deletion as an "extreme" solution, as it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the deletion criteria and why it exists. GraniteSand (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an extreme solution. It's the most extreme solution possible. That doesn't mean that it should never be used – just that it should be used judiciously. CSD identifies the bright-line reasons and there are other situations that require analysis, discussion, and judgement. How is that wrong? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure if your intention is to sway my opinion on your RfA. If that is the case I would say the trajectory of this unfolding process makes such an outcome unlikely. Nonetheless, I'll respond to your comment here because I think you do misunderstand the deletion criteria but that you're also a good editor who would do well in a re-application for administrator tools. The use of the deletion feature is not an "extreme" solution to the presence of inappropriate or inherently policy non-complaint articles, in fact it is the only solution to the presence of such material. The application of the deletion feature, even outside of CSD, is routine and healthy. It's also worth keeping in mind that in the instance of stunted and parochial content or articles which seem incapable of clearing the threshold for inclusion are not forever lost to deletion and may be restored at any time in the future should conditions change. Being familiar with the nuance of our deletion policies and being able to effectively employ, or arbitrate over, them from a position of learned authority is a vital skill for an administrator. This begins with understanding the role deletion plays. On a side note, I'd very much like to see more content creation on your part before a new application. Wikipedia can be a very process driven and bureaucratic place. The last thing this project needs is more bureaucrats working in the weeds, divorced from the laborious and essential endeavor of actually creating content. If you pro-actively employ your tools you will inevitably find yourself arbitrating over the substantial work of others. Being able to truly empathize with them is something I think is critical for anyone seeking the tools. Good luck and thank you for all the work you've done here so far. GraniteSand (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Deletion of an article is not an extreme solution. It is routine and policy calls for it all the time. The lack of AfD experience compounds this concern. Would support later when more experience with deletion is demonstrated. Chillum 18:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per Chillum and the evasive answer on Q11. If such questions don't get answered, it basically becomes impossible for us (in the absence of regular AfD contributions) to judge the candidate's ability to evaluate such discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose After the evasive answer to the questions I posed above, I'm convinced this is more than simply an editor who hasn't been a large participant in AfD. Rather, I have significant concerns about whether AlanM1 has some of the necessary skills and competence for the mop. Not all admins work in all places, true, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some core policies they need to know upon going into the role. Q10 only required a look on the talk page to understand the DS nature of the article. Even more, he insists that this isn't the type of work he'd want to do despite it being on his list in Q1. I also think his characterization of Q11 is unfair. It was a chance for him to show how he evaluates a debate on the site, something he will have the ability to judge--whether he does or not is irrelevant--in his capacity as an administrator. It was a chance to gleam some insight on his decision-making process and he instead chose to pivot. That in itself, if nothing more, is a sign we need to be cautious with this nomination. I have no doubts AlanM1 is a great editor and is completely honest in his responses. I simply feel he'd benefit greatly from more work in administrative areas (AfD is but one example) in order for him to gain a better understand of key Wikipedia policies. I wish him the best, but believe we should hold off for now. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I'm sure AlanM1 is a good editor, but good editors don't always make good admins. I would suggest come back in 6 months or so after doing some good work in admins areas - AfD, etc. Maybe a spell with Huggle to see what real vandalism goes on?, maybe one of the nominators might care to mentor him towards the next RfA? Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose: A few of his answers concern me. Q7: Maybe it's just my interpretation of it, but his answer to Q7 makes it sound like he had no idea Template editor existed. Since admins (regardless of whether they choose to do so) have the power to work in WP:RFPERM, he should definitely be familiar with, at the very least, the existence of each userright. Q10: I could understand a lack of familiarity with some DSs, but for something as obviously controversial as abortion, it's hard to see how that wouldn't be something to consider. The fact that the question named a specific article that was under DSs was not an attempt to play any trick on him, it was a scenario that he could realistically run into in his adminship. The fact that he didn't "do his homework" on that example suggests that he would do exactly the same if/when he becomes an admin. Q11: Per Lord Roem, his unwillingness to answer makes it difficult to see if he has enough/any knowledge of what notability is. His first answer sounds like a claim that, since he doesn't plan to work in that area, he shouldn't have to understand notability (which goes against "candidates...should respect and understand [Wikipedia's] policies"). Great editor? Looks like it. Great admin? Just not yet.—LucasThoms 00:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Q7. For the record, you're wrong. I duly noted the broadcast message about the discussion of the right (I may have even participated in itand participated in it[21]). I simply had not run into a significant need for it, only needing to request changes to a couple (few?) protected templates, and being satisfied with the procedure for doing so.

    Further, I don't think it's reasonable to think that anyone but WM developers know well which rights exist and what they do. That's why there's documentation, starting with Special:ListGroupRights. Create a test based on the contents of that page and I doubt many admins would get a passing grade.

    Re Q10. I made the mistake of giving a quick opinion, based solely on the information in this page, without regard for which article it was about, just as LR expected I would. Like I said, I shouldn't have answered, and I wouldn't have worked on the case in reality. I don't know why I have to keep repeating that. Whatever happened to AGF? It seems like more credit is given to people that are the subject of ANIs, who have actually committed acts of wrongdoing, when they say they will act subject to certain constraints, than I get, having clearly stated my intentions up front. I have no intention of working on AfD. Should I want or have (somehow) to, I will study the process and precedents, and apply the same intelligence and ability that I use for everything else. What about anything I've said makes this so hard to believe?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanM1 (talk • contribs)

    I struck the first half of my analysis of Q7—apparently it was just my interpretation of it. (However, by userrights, I meant the user groups on the left side of the that table, not the insane right column.) However, every admin, whether they intend to or not, should be able to handle things like that. There's nothing wrong with having given a quick opinion (as an non-admin)...if this was anywhere other than RfA. This is (essentially) the biggest test you can take at Wikipedia. Even if you don't plan to work at AfD, or to get involved in edit war resolution, it's still important to be familiar with policies. Why? Because when users need help, they ask admins.—LucasThoms 15:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose; sorry, but the answers to Q9 and Q10 makes me move here. I believe that admins should, if the situation comes, be able to deal with tough situations instead of just avoiding them. For example, I may not want to do anything if I come across an edit war on a contentious article, but if I do, I should be able to deal with it. This doesn't mean I don't think that you aren't a good editor; far from it, in fact, but rather that I don't think adminship is the right thing at this time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have it backwards, one of the best parts of the way things work on Wikipedia is that admins only need to get involved when they feel they can do so competently. The most valuable thing a new admin can learn is that they personally don't need to solve every problem they come across. That doesn't mean there isn't some breadth of experience expected, but somewhat specialized admins is unavoidable. Monty845 01:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that specialized admin are fine, but they still need to demonstrate a familiarity with a variety of the duties and processes here. Not all, but some, including some familiarity with deletion (Prod, CSD or AFD), dispute resolution and general policy as sometimes a problem is thrust upon an admin, and if you aren't wanting to handle it, you still need to know where to file it to get other admin to review. Simply ignoring it is seldom the best answer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose – I initially said I wouldn't oppose, but the last few answers above have made me more concerned. Like StringTheory11, I don't think an administrator should deliberately ignore a situation. Admins should know how to handle these situations. United States Man (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @StringTheory11 and United States Man: I'm sorry you felt the need to move your vote. Can you explain please under what circumstances I would be compelled to act in a situation in which I did not feel competent (like AfD)? What situation could exist in which I could not expect one of my 1400 brethren to either advise or perform the task themselves? Monty845's comment above is exactly in line with my understanding.

    @Dennis Brown and Ronhjones: In my answers above, I have demonstrated familiarity with many different aspects of admin work. Why is nobody looking at that work? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To me, it's not the fact that someone else could eventually do it, but the fact that you would shy away from it and pass it by. We need admins who are not afraid to handle tough situations. United States Man (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, it's pretty much the same raisining as United States Man, in that if there is a conflict between users, an admin should be able to help with it in some way, be it reporting it to another noticeboard or doing something themselves, but just taking no notice is not the right thing to do, in my opinion. I'm fine with content admins (heck, I mostly work on content), but I think other stuff is important too. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose-- but that means oppose for now. More experience is needed in some of the basic admin areas, and I hope the candidate will persevere. No admin can avoid dealing with edit warring and deletion. And a candidate for admin should at least be suspicious that Abortion is likely to be one of the subjects under special sanctions--and certainly should check on such things when up at RfA before answering. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I'm going to have to park here, I thought long and hard on this, but I want qualified admins with the right attitude. AlanM1's answers, especially to the submitted questions, give me terrible pause. I am also concerned about the minimal AFD participation. I also agree that deletion (except in CSD cases) should be a last resort, but AFD is one of the best places on Wikipedia to learn MOS and notability policies. I learned more participating in AFD than I ever did blindly reading policy pages, which is why it is of paramount importance to me for adminship. I think that this user could one day be an admin, but right now these two things are holding me back. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Lord Roem, Chillum, and others. There's no such thing as a specialized admin. If you come to RfA, come ready or your lunch will get eaten. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose My earlier concerns (see neutral section below) are now compounded by some of the question answers. Sorry, but for now, no.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Was on my way to supporting, feeling that the nominator generally made his case. But then I came across the answer to #10 and was not too impressed. I feel AlanM1 dodged a question which should have been pretty straightforward and easy, even if he had no intention to work in this area, he could still have taken advantage of an opportunity to inspire confidence amongst his fellow editors, here to evaluate him, that he is competent, he knows what to do, and we can feel safe that the tools are in good hands. Yet AlanM1 is still trustworthy and seems eager to help, and I'm really looking forward to supporting next time around. -- Ϫ 08:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. A successful RFA is virtually irrevocable, but an unsuccessful one has no consequences. Therefore any reasonable doubt must to lead to an oppose, and I have a reasonable doubt. Insufficient experience with content creation. I don't want this user closing content-related discussions or banning content editors, there's no way they're ready. If it was possible to unbundle the tools down to the ones the candidate is actually requesting ---- vandal-fighting, technical measures etc. ---- or if there was a functioning community de-adminship process, this !vote would be a "support". But things being as they are, I have no choice but to assess the candidate in the round.—S Marshall T/C 10:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose for now, with regret. AlanM1 seems like a careful and conscientious editor with a steady temperament and good communication skills. I like what I see, and that should be enough to trust him with the mop; but the broken structures force me to judge him on what I don't see.
    Unfortunately, adminship comes with a wide set of tools and it's a job for life unless someone screws up spectacularly badly. I would be very happy to support Alan's nomination if new admins had a probationary period, or if there was a reasonably accessible way for community to say "thanks, but this isn't working out" ... but there isn't.
    Alan does not appear to have significant experience of content creation, which is the core activity on Wikipedia. He also has very little experience of deletion, which is nearly as important in building an encyclopedia. Without the evidence of experience in those two areas, or of brokering or weighing consensus on policy disputes, I oppose giving him a powerful and near-irrevocable toolkit.
    If Alan addresses those gaps in his wiki-CV, then I would hope to be able to support a second RFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed that today AlanM1 reported[22] User:Bascoot at WP:UAA. The report was promptly removed[23] by Edgar181 because the problem identified was not with the username.
    The summary at the top of WP:UAA makes it clear that this was not a WP:UAA issue. No damage was done by that misjudgement, but the fact that this very easily-avoidable error was made while under RFA scrutiny doesn't inspire confidence. It makes the my vote a little bit less of a not now view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Much that has needed to be said has been expressed by the editors above. Particularly by BrownHairedGirl. I place myself here to further reinforce the gravity of the feedback that has been given. I generally believe this RFA will not be a major detriment to the next time this editor re-requests the tools provided they accept some of the advice above. Mkdwtalk 16:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck my comment about this RFA not being a detriment to a future RFA due to some recent comments such as this and this. RFA is notoriously unpleasant but it has become a test to see how candidates react to pressure and criticism. When candidates become defensive and dismissive of advice it gives me great pause. I now have concerns over the temperament and patience of this candidate and their willingness to accept criticism and feedback. How this candidate has responded to this RFA, especially in the latter half, will be taken into consideration in the next RFA. I still wish this candidate all the best in the future but this will be a secondary aspect that I'll be looking at the next time around as opposed to simply a lack of custodial experience. Mkdwtalk 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I feel AlanM1 has much to offer the project, especially as a template editor. I don't, however, feel that he would be useful as an admin as he doesn't show evidence of having the admin mind set. This is not a criticism. Some people have the admin mind set, and some don't - it's not a good or bad thing, it's just what is; like having black or blonde hair. And, like hair colour, if you haven't got it after seven+ years, then it seems unlikely you'll get it in the future. Things might have gone differently if the RfA had been set up in a different manner; however, AlanM1's answers to the questions, and his behaviour during the RfA, have not been impressive, so it is possible that it would have ended up this way anyway. I hope that AlanM1 doesn't take this experience too badly, and instead concentrates on assisting Wikipedia in areas where his skills are already well suited. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I have one response to question 8. "Welcome to adminship on Wikipedia". Disputes are what we deal with each and every day in any area of the admin tools. There will be people who disagree with your opinion. From what I've seen above, your not willing to make a bold move in regards to admin matters, if one was needed, or even defend one of your own decisions properly. I see a lot of 'I won't use that tool'. I thought that many times before. I've used every tool in the book to this day, and still continue to use them all. More admin-area experience, and a more civil response to opposition are what I would like to see for the next RFA. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose A6 was the deal breaker for me, along with A8. There are articles in AFD that simply CAN'T be improved upon because they fail GNG, so deletion is the only option. Your reluctance to delete articles is off-putting. And there are times when you HAVE to deal with the "irrational" editor, especially if another seeks you out for arbitration. The fact that you aren't willing to handle those situations is a sign that, like other opposers have stated, you aren't ready to handle the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose redundantly and recommend withdrawal and trying again in six to 12 months. I was thinking about supporting early to cancel out some of the ridiculous early oppose votes. I'm an administrator whose main area of expertise is AFD and we need less editors in that area who simply don't grasp the policy of it. AFD participation is not a prerequisite to admminship. Also two years "is not enough time" is the most absurd oppose vote I ever seen and a terrible slippery slope, but I have to agree with Brownhairedgirl and SilkTork in this case. I expect an admin candidate to have at least some basic knowledge of deletion policy and handling disputes, even if you are specialized in one area like Alan seems to be. But the answers to the questions were rather shocking to say the least and shows lack of WP:CLUE. It seems like he has no knowledge of that area whatsoever and is very flip-floppy/desperate in his own RFA while trying to counter these early oppose votes. That is a bad trait for any administrative candidate no matter what's the request. I recommend Alan to get more knowledge on how to handle disputes or reading up on policy and try again within a year as there is a ton of positive as well in this candidate. Secret account 07:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose: I'm not concerned about unfamiliarity with discretionary sanctions, for example, but like others I am concerned about lack of experience in deletion, and the attitude expressed. Go make some comments at AfD, keep a CSD log, and I will likely support you once you have shown your good judgement. Also, conflict handling is not something that can be ignored – people will likely bring issues to you eventually, and you can't shy away from that. BethNaught (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Not ready - the application is messy. Small detailed edits help the project, but writing and administrating a project are two quite distinct tasks. --Gryllida (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. For now. Insufficient experience, partially evidenced by answers above and partially by insufficient work in important areas as of yet. If the editor edits at the same rate, I would encourage the editor to try back in a year or thereabouts. Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose as too inexperienced, sorry. Being around a long time is not the same as being an experienced editor. Keep up the good work, but do more of it! Happy to support in future. GiantSnowman 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Not enough experience, as mentioned above. More participation in AFD, better knowledge of the policies and tools in question, and an answer to Q14 (as of this writing it has not yet been answered). --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
At least for now. The lack of AfD participation is concerning, and less than 8,000 edits in six years is not too active (but this is still plenty and will not garner an oppose from me). United States Man (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see evidence of participation in admin related areas. Things like AfD and other discussions that an admin eventually closes allow me to better judge the users understanding of policy. If such examples are presented I will reconsider my position. Chillum 21:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about a lack of participation specifically in AfD, but as others have stated, I would like to examine more thoroughly the areas of custodial maintenance AlanM1 has participated in to gain and understanding of their judgement and how they would handle the tools. Mkdwtalk 21:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Moved to Oppose Mkdwtalk 16:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  1. As stated above, there needs to be participation in AfD for my !vote and a higher activity level would do well. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For now - I'm not agreeing with most of the opposing nor most of the supporting votes here. Seems like a really nice guy, but I'm not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling about this one, and the lack of AFD is worrisome. The last candidate had similar issues and agreed to mentoring. The problem is that we have no way to tell how the candidate looks at deletions, or that he understands our policies on them at all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To add: It is pretty obvious I oppose but didn't see a need to pile on, and even early on it seemed this wouldn't pass. Not because you are a bad guy, you actually seem like a nice enough sort, but from a lack of experience in enough areas. Experience in CSD or AFD is required, not just to show you understand our deletion policy, but it is the only way to actually LEARN deletion policy. Same with dispute resolution. Work a little at WP:AN3 or WP:DRN to learn how to deal with disputes here. Once you have the admin bit, you don't have a choice, things WILL be thrown on your lap. They will bring it to your talk page, and you have to do something, trust me. Sometimes you solve it, sometimes you take it to the right board or get another admin that is more experienced with that kind of problem, but admin do NOT have the luxury of just ignoring requests and reverting it off their page. We are all specialists, and it is fine to have areas where you aren't comfortable, but an admin has to have a broad, general understanding of the place. And it will help you do your specialized work better, to boot. I would be happy to support next go around if you get more experience in some critical areas. If you want help getting some of the experience you need, I know that myself and a number of others would be willing to help with some basic mentoring towards that goal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wavering. [Switched to Oppose] Not enough AfD experience or solid content contributions in terms of article creation/improvement (AFAICS editor's contributions in this area are all stubs/lists). The former is key, IMHO, to demonstrate the necessary understanding of policy required for the tools and the latter would be a bonus. If I could see some examples of work on good/featured articles or a couple of DYKs that might convince me otherwise.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't kept track of which articles I've contributed to were FA/GA at that or some other time. I do remember having worked on getting Operation Frequent Wind up to GA. My contribs do include a lot of article copy-editing/citing/maint-tagging, though often to articles that are perhaps less "popular", and not the focus of the FA/GA/DYK tracks. Also, list articles are not always trivial. List of human stampedes in Hindu temples, for example, took a fair amount of work to clean up and cite. I've also done a lot of work on List of colors: A–F etc., and have a rework of them in progress. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    X's Tool is useful for showing your contributions if you are unsure which articles you have worked on: [24], and he has one for showing who did what on individual articles, so you can see your involvement in Operation Frequent Wind: [25]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Per others above. Lack of AfD participation is concerning. Faizan 19:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I'm baffled by the nomination statement, but I can easily look beyond that. A calm, level-headed candidate, it seems, but I'm not ready to show support without more significant contributions presented. I'm not looking for a crafted masterpiece of an article, but just something to show dedication and effort. I must say, however, that I do not think it's fair to consider two years of active editing as insufficient, and the registration date is absolutely irrelevant. As long as the candidate can clearly show they can be trusted with the tools, and adapt to a changing environment, that's all that matters. That can be done in less than a year, in my opinion. Same applies with the edit count. Quality over quantity. — MusikAnimal talk 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral With MusikAnimal above regarding contributions. It doesn't bother me the candidate's not interested in AfD, but when I go to look for eveidence of article contribution, I can't see anything substantial. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It feels to me like the nomination rationale and the answers to questions have been a case study in how not to do an RfA. I would like the closing 'crat to understand my comment as being very close to an oppose for now, while being receptive to future reapplication, but it looks to me like this RfA is going to fail in any case, and I would rather not pile on, because the candidate is clearly a nice editor with good intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral leaning towards oppose. The response to Q11 bothers me. I understand that Alan doesn't intend to work in AfD, but the fact is the tools don't make that distinction. Until the day comes that we separate deletion from all the other tasks admins do, admins need to be able to demonstrate at least a baseline competence in all areas they can potentially screw up. I'm not saying Alan lacks competence in those areas, but being unwilling to even attempt to show competence is disturbing. I personally would probably be willing to forgive a half-wrong response to a question on deletion so long as the correct logical process were there. Admin specialties are much like medical board certifications: optional and highly encouraged, but completely outside the basic licensing scheme. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral You seem to be doing the right things here, but I am more leery about the AFD issues, and am going to remain neutral for now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. If one discounts all the bot messages, there is very little left in the candidate's talk page archives that is interaction. There is even less that demonstrates much in the way of getting seriously 'involved' in the running of the Wikipedia (beyond templates) that would denote sufficient experience or even a strong argument for the tools. Reasonably active admins are going to get involved in drama sooner or later, but although always courteous, there is no measure of how he would apply his judgement in slightly more contentious or controversial issues. The lack of work in deletions also gives me pause - Alan hasn't done anything wrong anywhere AFAICS, but he hasn't done enough of the right things in the right places for me to be able support this time round, and doesn't meet my criteria. More work in maintenance areas other than routine anti-vandalismsm and I would probably be able to support another time. NPP would be a good place to start and demonstrate a high accuracy of CSD, PROD, and AfD tagging - and equally reverting/declining some poorly calculated tags made by other patrollers, and the use of the NPP comment box to provide new page creatrors with tidbits of help and advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral I think Alan is going to be a fine admin one day, but I don't believe he's ready at this point. Not enough admin-y activity or experience, and even discounting the lack of familiarity with topics under discretionary sanctions and the deletion policy, his reactions here could have been better, although I can see how that could be a result from this whole thing being more stressful than it needed to be. Get your hands dirty down at AFD, CSD, SPI, NPP, AIV, etc, and come back in 6 months. I'll support without hesitation. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 15:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral I am sorry that this seems to have been a stressful experience for the candidate. Deletion is not "extreme" but is absolutely necessary to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. The power to delete is one of the key administrative tools, and I encourage the candidate to learn much more about it. Some content creation would also be a good idea. Then come back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Comment: the thing that worries me most about this is the plaintive tone of some of the things said here and elsewhere, because I wonder what sort of experience you'd have if you get the tools and then run up against trolls who'll fight you when you use them. If you ask for power tools, people may judge that you aren't ready for them, and they have to say why, otherwise their !votes would be ignored. It isn't personal. If you want to go for an RfA, you need a good dose of WP:DGAF and of the even better article it links to. By the way, I do believe your assurances that you wouldn't use certain tools, but if we support one person on that basis, we open ourselves to being challenged when we oppose someone else who makes a similar assertion: "Oh you supported him, why not me?" For this reason, I'd have opposed too, but like I say, it isn't personal. --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral Somewhat confrontational approach to RfA via not answering questions, replying to opposers, bolding etc. A candidacy based on no big deal (with which I heartily agree, in principle) should I guess treat it as such. benmoore 12:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral I had intended to support originally, because i did not see sufficient reason in any opposes, but i forgot to actually do it; the candidate's behaviour in the RfA in the meantime, has lead me to believe that the time is not right for this move. I cannot oppose, partly because of the nature of some entries there which i do not wish to be associated with, but also just because it would be going overboard at this point. I land here simply to express my disappointment that a candidate i thought would be given the mop has not been, and my hope that at a future point he will be successfully standing again. Cheers, LindsayHello 15:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category